PDA

View Full Version : Phillies decline options on Oswalt and Lidge



savafan
10-24-2011, 09:35 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/philadelphia-phillies-make-pitchers-roy-oswalt-brad-lidge-free-agents.html


The Philadelphia Phillies declined to pick up contract options on Roy Oswalt and Brad Lidge, making the 34-year-old pitchers unrestricted free agents.

MartyFan
10-25-2011, 04:04 AM
Yes, please!

:beerme:

wlf WV
10-25-2011, 07:20 AM
I said in the" Get a Pitcher" thread ,I expected Oswalt would go to Red Sox or Yankees.

I change my mind,I think Texas or St. Louis.I would like to have him though.

redsfandan
10-25-2011, 07:26 AM
Considering the success he's had vs the Reds I wonder how he'd feel about pitching FOR the Reds.

Chip R
10-25-2011, 09:07 AM
Considering the success he's had vs the Reds I wonder how he'd feel about pitching FOR the Reds.

Yeah, I don't know about that. He's good, no doubt, but he's no spring chicken anymore. Plus I'm wary of acquiring guys who have been good against us - with certain exceptions. The Cubs used to do that. Some player would rake on their pitching and they would go out and get him and he'd stink up the joint mainly because he didn't have to face their pitching anymore.

dfs
10-25-2011, 09:19 AM
Yeah, I don't know about that. He's good, no doubt, but he's no spring chicken anymore.

The guy's 33 and with the exception of this last year he regularly throws 200+ innings with an ERA+ above 100. That's as safe a pitcher as your going to get. Your good over 3 years and it's not a stretch to envision Oswalt being a useful member of your staff in 5 years.

He's got tons of successful post season experience and by all accounts gets as much performance out of his talents as anybody in baseball.

I can't see the reds getting a guy like this, but times (and owners) have changed.

chicoruiz
10-25-2011, 09:24 AM
If he's the kind of guy that would be a good mentor to our young pitching, I might be interested, but the price tag is going to be awfully high.

redsfandan
10-25-2011, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I don't know about that. He's good, no doubt, but he's no spring chicken anymore. Plus I'm wary of acquiring guys who have been good against us - with certain exceptions. The Cubs used to do that. Some player would rake on their pitching and they would go out and get him and he'd stink up the joint mainly because he didn't have to face their pitching anymore.

I'm not saying I'd want to give him a long term contract. But, IF the price was right I'd be very interested in a 2+ year contract.

My bet is that the Rangers will be the favorites. It would be nice if the Reds were bidders for a change though.

RedFanAlways1966
10-25-2011, 12:21 PM
The guy's 33 and with the exception of this last year he regularly throws 200+ innings with an ERA+ above 100. That's as safe a pitcher as your going to get. Your good over 3 years and it's not a stretch to envision Oswalt being a useful member of your staff in 5 years.

I get your point, but not so sure I agree with your last sentence. Perhaps all those 200+ IP years have worn down that right arm (and last year is a sign of it?). It is tough to find useful starting pitchers that are in their mid-30's (steroid abusers excluded). More an exception than the rule. Not saying that Oswalt cannot be useful and stay healthy. However, for the kind of $$$ he will get, I'll pass on the risk.

RedsManRick
10-25-2011, 12:26 PM
Pass. Oswalt is a great pitcher and could be a huge asset to a team. But his health issues are a giant red flag and precisely the kind of risk the Reds should not be taking.

wlf WV
10-25-2011, 09:57 PM
I think his back is his main problem.

Vottomatic
10-26-2011, 08:26 AM
If the Reds had the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs unlimited payrolls then I would take a chance on either or both. But the Reds don't have that luxury, have to be smart with their money, with no room for high salary chances or mistakes.

Which is why the NFL, with their salary cap, is better than mlb and their refusal to promote parity.

reds1869
10-26-2011, 08:39 AM
If the Reds had the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs unlimited payrolls then I would take a chance on either or both. But the Reds don't have that luxury, have to be smart with their money, with no room for high salary chances or mistakes.

Which is why the NFL, with their salary cap, is better than mlb and their refusal to promote parity.

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
2002 Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins
2004 Boston Red Sox
2005 Chicago White Sox
2006 St. Louis Cardinals
2007 Boston Red Sox
2008 Philadelphia Phillies
2009 New York Yankees
2010 San Francisco Giants

Notice anything that stands out about that list? Compared to the one below I'd say parity is more alive and well at the top in MLB than it is in the NFL where two teams own half the titles in the same time frame. I agree that spending is out of control in certain markets but it has done much to buy World Series rings.

cumberlandreds
10-26-2011, 08:48 AM
I think his back is his main problem.

Yep. That's a huge stop sign for me. Back problems almost always lead to arm problems. He would have to be fairly cheap for me to want him now.

bucksfan2
10-26-2011, 09:04 AM
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
2002 Anaheim Angels
2003 Florida Marlins
2004 Boston Red Sox
2005 Chicago White Sox
2006 St. Louis Cardinals
2007 Boston Red Sox
2008 Philadelphia Phillies
2009 New York Yankees
2010 San Francisco Giants

Notice anything that stands out about that list? Compared to the one below I'd say parity is more alive and well at the top in MLB than it is in the NFL where two teams own half the titles in the same time frame. I agree that spending is out of control in certain markets but it has done much to buy World Series rings.

Ah yes the parity argument. I would buy it but with the exception of the Marlins and the Cardinals the rest of the teams to win the WS came from large markets or spent a large amount of money (Diamondbacks). If you want to make the parity argument and validate it group teams by tiers in payroll and see how often the lower tiered payroll teams win.

osuceltic
10-26-2011, 09:09 AM
Find me a no-risk starting pitcher. The last one to hit the market was Cliff Lee. There aren't many. So if you're shopping in free agency, you're taking a risk. Here's why I like Oswalt: He wants to stay in the NL and play for a contender. That eliminates some of the obvious big-money AL teams and keeps the Reds in it. He reportedly is looking for a two-year deal. Sure, it might not work out. But it's only two years. That's the kind of risk worth taking. You're not going to find a guy who figures to perform like Oswalt willing to sign a two-year deal. I think he'd be perfect for the Reds.

Vottomatic
10-26-2011, 09:58 AM
Ah yes the parity argument. I would buy it but with the exception of the Marlins and the Cardinals the rest of the teams to win the WS came from large markets or spent a large amount of money (Diamondbacks). If you want to make the parity argument and validate it group teams by tiers in payroll and see how often the lower tiered payroll teams win.

Agreed.

And for the record, I prefer MLB over the NFL. But I do think the NFL is set up for losing teams to rebound quickly over a couple of seasons and contend. MLB is not. Mostly due to payroll. There should probably not only be a cap but a floor too. And if the lower payroll teams don't want to spend enough above the floor, then shut them down, make them sell, or move them to a city that increases attendance.

Where the NFL struggles is with their owners and management. Some teams just know how to win and recycle quality players. Other teams, like the Bengals, even with high draft picks, find a way to lose, except for possibly now (we shall see how this turns out). But payrolls are closer in the NFL than they will ever be in MLB without a salary cap.

reds1869
10-26-2011, 10:55 AM
There should probably not only be a cap but a floor too. And if the lower payroll teams don't want to spend enough above the floor, then shut them down, make them sell, or move them to a city that increases attendance.

If a salary floor is implemented I am 100% in favor of a salary cap. Without it the poor teams will still lag far behind.

The NFL is certainly a league where a team can improve quickly, but that has little to do with payroll similarities and much to do with draft picks coming to pro football ready to play rather than being years away in their development. A good NFL draft pick pays off much quicker than one in baseball. College football serves the function of baseball's minor leagues.

*BaseClogger*
10-26-2011, 11:49 AM
I don't like the World Series argument for parity because it is a product of postseason baseball's unpredictability. I think more often than not the best team in the NFL actually wins the Super Bowl, while it's the hottest team that wins the World Series...

bucksfan2
10-26-2011, 12:11 PM
If a salary floor is implemented I am 100% in favor of a salary cap. Without it the poor teams will still lag far behind.

The NFL is certainly a league where a team can improve quickly, but that has little to do with payroll similarities and much to do with draft picks coming to pro football ready to play rather than being years away in their development. A good NFL draft pick pays off much quicker than one in baseball. College football serves the function of baseball's minor leagues.

The differences in the draft is definitely helps with the competitive balance in football moreso than it does in baseball. But there could be several tweaks that would help baseball out. You must declare for the draft as well as a hard slot price tag would help teams out immensely. Teams wouldn't fear losing a player to school and would be able to draft the best player available not the best player whose agent isn't named Scott Boras.

This comes up pretty much every off season, the debate between football and baseball. I tend to think football looks out for the overall well being of the league while baseball is content making the big market cities happy.